On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:45:51AM +0200, Knapp wrote:
> My f16 analogy was weak. My point only being that all the combat
> maneuvers that I know of use turning and flares or EMC to stop or
> avoid an attack not acceleration or deceleration.

Turning is acceleration, in the sense of physics.  Any change of
velocity vector is acceleration.  In space without aerodynamics to
provide maneuvering forces, this just becomes more obvious.


> As the range becomes extreme so that speed of light becomes a factor
> then your acceleration VS the apparent size of the target might
> limit your contact time with the laser. This is only important if
> the laser is weak enough to need long contact times or you must be
> very precise to kill the ship.

It's always important.  If light speed lag means that the target might
be anywhere in a region 10 times wider than the ship's diameter, then
the average laser power hitting the ship is reduced by a factor of 100.

If the laser power is in the form of infrequent pulsed shots, then it
manifests as a 1% chance of hitting instead of 100%.  If a beam, then
it cuts across the hull only 1% of the time.  If a broad "heat ray",
then only 1% is absorbed by the ship.  In all cases, it's a much
better situation for the target than not maneuvering.


- Tim